October 9, 2008

Asks Power Line, with evidence that Obama ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996 as a member of the New Party. Was he a member or was he simply endorsed by the Party, which had a strategy of endorsing Democratic Party candidates who were sufficiently left wing?

In any case, I don't think it's right to call the New Party "socialist." I remember this party. One of the founders was UW lawprof Joel Rogers. They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as "socialist," but let's not be inflammatory.

I found an article in the LA Times, January 27, 1997, called "Life of the Party, Joel Rogers, Recipient of a MacArthur 'Genius' Grant, Helps Guide the Fledgling New Party and its Campaign to Provide Educational Opportunity and a Living Wage." (No link, because the LA Times website is inadequate.) Excerpt:

Imagine, [Joel Rogers] says, that in 2000 the Democrats run Al Gore for president and the Republicans offer, say, millionaire Steve Forbes....

A mad taxer might, instead, "vote his values" by poking the ballot next to Gore's name--not where he is listed as a Democrat, but beside his New Party nomination...

Either way, the vote would count toward the candidate's total. And the candidate, says Rogers, would get a sharp reminder that a certain percentage of his votes came from people who think a certain way--like New Party "progressives," for instance.

Which leads to the question of just what this New Party stands for, and how popular its "populism" would really be....

"If you ask, 'Do you think all kids should have an equal start in life,' 80% of the population would agree with you," he says.

Next he shoots out a rhetorical filament about declining incomes and wage disparity--reflecting the party's vehement support of "living wage" campaigns.

"People really don't think it's fair to work full time, 2,000 hours a year, and get such lousy pay that they can't even raise a kid on it," he says. "That has electoral promise, that sentiment. . . . You can't inflict this much damage on people's expectations and not see it show up somewhere in voter volatility and anger.

The party also supports progressive taxation, international workers rights, environmental protection, urban renewal and the public financing of elections....

If anything bugs Rogers, though, it is the suggestion that his dream is a new playground for political hobbyists and pinko pointy heads.

"I think it would be unfair to characterize it as just a marketing strategy for old defeated socialists. . . ," Rogers says. "It attaches much less weight to the state--much less than even conventional liberalism."

It's not fair to call the New Party "socialist," and it's really not fair to paint Obama as a crypto-socialist today because of his association with it.

IN THE COMMENTS: One of my favorite commenters, Chip Ahoy, calls this "Simply the most incoherent post I've ever read here." He goes on:

Why not call a socialist a socialist? Don't tell me not to call a spade a spade or a club a club, I'll call them as I see them.

Everything about this post speaks to socialism, jealousy, income redistribution, class war. Joel Roberts [sic], whether or not he likes to hear it, is a socialist. There's nothing else to make of peeling off the most left of the left.

I didn't bother with the word clouds presented here earlier, but I recall hearing the word "fairness" a lot by both Obama and Biden. Now there's a word that grates. There. is. no. such. thing ◯ I'm sorry you burned your leg, Chip. And I'm not speaking to the question whether Rogers is a socialist. But I think the New Party project was meant to be more mainstream ... left, but mainstream. I think candidates that were endorsed by the party, as it followed its supposedly clever strategy, were just very liberal Democrats.

AJ Lynch, another commenter with a fine reputation here, calls Chip's post "the best comment of the month." He adds:

I suggest you let them sink in Ann.

Peter snarks:

Let's not be silly. Of course Obama is a socialist!

The real question is this: Is Ann Althouse a socialist?

I'm just a humble citizen of Madison, Wisconsin, an observer of political things who is not herself political. I come from the world of art, and I sojourned into law, where I did not really belong, but I got ensnared in a career here, and blogging is my reemergence as the real person that I truly am. I have met many interesting people here in Madison, including many lefties, including Joel Rogers. They are the normal people around here -- here, where I feel so comfortable, where I have lived for a quarter of a century, even though I in no way belong here. Have some pity on me, dear readers.

it's really not fair to paint Obama as a crypto-socialist today because of his association with it.

I have always subscribed to the theory that you can tell a lot about a person by the folks they associate with. I may not go so far as to say he's a full fledged socialist but I think it's fair to say that he is certainly sympathetic to a broad spectrum of the philosophy.

It might be unfair to call Obama a crypt-socialist based on his association with the New Party, but if he really had any sympathy with this group, then, based on the quoted material, it seems eminently fair to call him a left-wing nut. I hereby resolve always to use the latter terminology.

Of course, we recall that Prof. Althouse has been called a wingnut herself (by Kevin Drum).

I have to agree. I don't see what that article does other than confirm that the New Party was, in fact, socialist. They want socialism, but the founder's defense against being called socialist is that they don't give the state as much weight as socialists. You can't enact all of that progressive garbage without the force of the state, so his defense is an empty one.

Regardless of semantic arguments over how to label the New Party, the biggest issue is the amount of coverage the MSM gives it. Palin's non-connection to the Alaska Independence Party received too much scrutiny, but Obama has yet to receive too much scrutiny on any of his shady past.

Chicago Democratic Socialists of America support in essence the Obama platform.

But maybe you can see a difference where I cannot.

* the "Living Wage"* Universal Health Care * where "economic policy goals are established by the national government and provide comprehensive and coordinated support to local governments."* "the values of liberal democracy can only be fulfilled when the economy as well as the government is democratically controlled"* "Racial equality: It must place a high priority on economic justice to eradicate the sources of inequality; on affirmative action and other compensatory programs to overcome ongoing discrimination and the legacy of inequality; and on social justice to change the behavior, attitudes, and ideas that foster racism."* "Democratic, representative control over fiscal, monetary, and trade policy would enable citizens to have a voice in setting the basic framework of economic policy - what social investment is needed, who should own or control basic industries, and how they might be governed.

While broad investment decisions and fiscal and monetary policies are best made by democratic processes, many argue that the market best coordinates supply with demand for goods, services, and labor. Regulated markets can guarantee efficiency, consumer choice and labor mobility. However, democratic socialists recognize that market mechanisms do generate inequalities of wealth and income. But, the social ownership characteristic of a socialist society will greatly limit inequality."

You are judged by the people who you associate with. Hang with druggies. Hang with socialists. If you disagree with the fundamental policies or lifestyles of those you are associating with, then YOU change. If you don't.....it is obvious you agree.

What does it tell you when one of a person's inspirational heroes is Saul Alinsky?. The guy who invented "community organizing" and intended it to to be a subversive tactic.

Palladian, I don't know whether public funding counts as "socialist," but to the extent that one suspects it is offered as the flipside to the demand that only the public funding system be used - the system's rationale folds in on itself if it isn't mandatory - it raises First Amendment problems.

I don't think that Obama is a socialist; I grew up in Britain where we had actual socialists (and communists, trotskyists, stalinists, the kit and caboodle), and from that perspective, Obama isn't a socialist. But I do think that he and other so-called progressives share the same basic assumptions as socialists - that is, they are two different stems growing from a common root, two different approaches arising from the same paradigm. If that's a reasonable proposition, the question becomes whether it's the particular branch socialism, that's the problem, or whether the rot starts at the root. That is, no matter what we label that paradigm - be it socialism or something else - is that the problem, or is it only a problem if Obama has taken the wrong branch.

...he shoots out a rhetorical filament [aside: interesting spider imagery] about declining incomes and wage disparity--reflecting the party's vehement support of "living wage" campaigns..... The party also supports progressive taxation, international workers rights, environmental protection, urban renewal and the public financing of elections....

To this:

Rogers says. "[the party] attaches much less weight to the state--much less than even conventional liberalism."

Bring a compass and plenty of rations wingers, you'll need it for that long walk in the forest you're on. That's if you're really wondering why you're getting your ass thoroughly kicked all around the country.

I don't think this news makes Obama's own beliefs any less anodyne (to the extent he believes in anything other than Barack Obama), but it's further evidence that he's comfortable in the company of hard leftists-- and we can expect that he's bring a certain number of those to Washingtoon with him, given the chance.

garage, once more you try to imitate michael-al-etc. It is really unbecoming of you.

The reality is that, as many have quoted the Great Berra, it ain't over until it's over. And to believe the MSM predictions is dangerous. Now, you may be entirely correct, but to base your opinions on that, it's not advisable.

Is the lawprof correct in saying that Gore's vote total would have been the same if some of his supporters had voted for him as the New Party candidate? In our first-past-the-post electoral college system, this doesn't seem right to me. The electors are generally selected by the party, and presumably the New Party's electors would form a slate entirely separate from those of the Democratic party. If so, any votes for Gore in his New Party incarnation would have subtracted from the votes for the Democratic slate of electors and narrowed the gap between the number of votes that slate received and the number of votes the Republican slate received (we can assume with confidence, I think, that the New Party was nowhere near posing a threat to the two-party hegemony). Thus, the lawprof may be right that candidate Gore's popular vote totals would not have changed, but in a close race, voting for the New Party's Al Gore may very well have thrown the popular vote victory to the Republican party electors. No?

"A Bill of Rights for America's Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity by providing equal access to comparable education, health care, nutrition, housing, and safety.... Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage" to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

To each according to their needs.

"The New Party believes that the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America -- the return of power to the people. Our basic purpose -- reflected both in our own governance and in our aspirations for the nation -- is to make that revolution happen."

Also circa 2001, DC Finegold Sachs, who is a self-described hard-core partisan, worked for Planned Parenthood, etc. and who ran/runs the political website www.dcpoliticalreport.com listed the New Party in the section "Socialist Parties Links".

Our economy, society and representative form of government are in flames and we are in danger of burning to the ground. What do we do? We are about to 'hire' one of the arsonists to the highest office in our nation.

We are worse than screwed. Like Peter Townsend said. I hope I die before I get old.

They presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and progressive.

Well, yes. And the Nazis presented themselves not as genocidal murderers, but as nationalist upholders of the German people. What you present yourself as might be interesting, but is rarely the underlying truth.

The larger issue about Obama's affiliation with this group (extensively documented here) is that Obama has denied membership or affiliation with the NP. He joined, and lied about it. Socialist or not, that's problematic.

I've researched the NP, and I believe it to be entirely fair to describe them as socialist at best. The Chicago chapter, in particular, was a hotbed of outright communists, the type of people for whom "socialist" was a conservative tag.

Meanwhile, a Republican administration is doing something that looks remarkably like Nationalizing banks.

I for one never viewed the Bush administration as Republican in any form. If they have done anything over the last 8 years was to govern in the most un-Republican manner. I'll go so far as to say that Bush done quite a good job in laying out the foundation for even more government intervention in the private sector including the confiscatory tax policies that Obama is proposing.

Considering the damage Bush has done to the Republican party and conservatism in general, a conspiracy theorist might think he was a sleeper mole ala Manchurian Candidate.

Richard, that's a terrific question that turns on the question of whether an individual person nominated by more than one party can aggregate all the votes they receive regardless of the capacity in which they received it, and the answer is almost certainly "it depends on state law." For example, suppose you're the nominee of more than one party - do you appear on the ballot more than once, ab initio? The state designs the ballot (cf. the Washington State Grange case), so maybe the ballot is like this:

"It's not fair to call the New Party "socialist," and it's really not fair to paint Obama as a crypto-socialist today because of his association with it."

1) Really? Why not?

2) Really? Why not?

Let's see, look at Obama's platform, and almost every plank is socialist. I'm sorry, but socialism is not Boolean, as liberals insist. Supporting a socialist platform makes one a socialist. There's nothing "unfair" about it, unless you feel that calling water wet is "unfair."

Let me say this at the outset. Most Americans know about socialism by what they have read or heard and not by living under one. I have a different perspective because I have had the 'good' fortune to live under one. I know what socialism smells and tastes and I can flat out tell you it is not pretty.

One way to know socialism is lurking around the corner is to pay attention to how the leader of the party talks and acts and warms up to accolades. Obama fits the bill perfectly. Here are few examples:

1) He thinks that making tax cuts is giving away money to the rich. You see he does not think the money is the peoples to begin with and that government is not giving them a dime by cutting taxes but simply refrained from taking more money from the people.

2) He keeps talking what goodies he will give to the people.

3) He does think government knows more and cares about you and me than we know and care about ourseleves.

4)Look at the accolades he seems to relish. The Seal, the children chorous and on and on.

Our economy, society and representative form of government are in flames and we are in danger of burning to the ground. What do we do? We are about to 'hire' one of the arsonists to the highest office in our nation.

We are worse than screwed. Like Peter Townsend said. I hope I die before I get old.

The arsonist are the republicans who pushed deregulation and whom you voted for. Your guy had all houses from 2000-2006 and are now going to nationalize banks. Blame yourself, and your intentional ignorance.

But suppose that you're of the opinion that the term "socialist" has such negative connotations that its use is only merited when someone stands up and announces "Yes, I'm a socialist". Or suppose that you think that the meanings of words change, and "socialist" doesn't mean what it did last week. Or suppose that you think socialism is just peachy.

Then don't bother with the label; just look at one of Obama's proposed "policehs" (at some point, this became the accepted pronunciation of "policies"):

The Patriotic Companies act (or whatever the hell Orwellian name they gave it), which would define a company as "patriotic" if it allowed workers to organize into unions via open ballot, allowing union thugs to intimidate employees; paid their employees a certain amount, and a few other criteria; and would give those companies tax breaks that "unpatriotic" companies wouldn't receive.

Whether you admit that this government control of the means of production is Marxism, and whether you admit that this government control of the thoughts and behaviors of citizens and labelling of compliant subjects as "patriotic" wreaks of Stalin, I think we can all agree that it's chillingly evil and stupid "policeh".

Except for AlphaLiberal, Garage Mahal, and a few other....socialists.

We're about to elect to the presidency someone who will be much, much worse than Jimmy Carter, and he'll win because he has a nice voice and brown skin. Once he's elected, he'll send so much money and power to entities like ACORN that the Republicans will never win another election above the level of dog-catcher. Every city of more than 100,000 people will have 105% voter registration, like Indianapolis has today.

But you know what's most disappointing about all of this? That Althouse, a law professor, will vote for a man that has stated that he'll nominate SCOTUS justices that will base their decisions not on what the contitution says, but what it ought to say. A man that voted against the most qualified SCOTUS nominee of all time. A man that wipes his ass on the constitution.

Short of Obama beginning to campaign full time with the Castro brothers wearing a Che t shirt and demanding that GM start producing Trabants, I'm pretty sure that likely Democratic voters will see/hear/speak no evil, and shout down anyone that points out the blindingly obvious.

The arsonist are the republicans who pushed deregulation and whom you voted for

STFU. You don't know who I voted for. You also don't know WTF you are talking about re: the mortgages and the economy.

Why don't you go back to feminist bashing and hating on Palin because she reminds you of someone in your church who dated your daddy? At least you have some frame of reference for that stupid line of thinking.

Why did Obama lie about belonging to the New Party? Why lie? This happened over a decade ago. If the New Party was no big deal, why lie about it?

And now he's caught in his lie, via links from three organizations.

The New Party was a subgroup of Democratic Socialists for America. It's hard to argue they were not socialist, insofar as they self-defined as socialist.

At absolute minimum, this is evidence of what media will not report: Barack once gladly consorted a good distance to the political left. If this New Party evidence forces media to acknowledge this one thing, it will be an improvement over how they have covered Barack to this point.

I agree - Obama's supporters are socialists, too, so calling The One a Marxist or communist or socialist is not a slur, from their perspective. Chavez, Che, Mao, Fidel, Stalin and Lenin are all heroes to most democrats and, apparently, now, a majority of Americans. Ayers has done his job well.

From my scan of the comments, it seems people are glomming onto the lesser point you make (in my possibly not sufficiently humble opinion). Is the New Party socialist? Close enough for government work, I'd say. The real question is, was Obama a member of it?

That's a question I think most people in this country are ill-equipped to even understand. I live in New York. There are many parties here and often the minor parties endorse major party candidates in order to keep their ballot position, instead of running a candidate of their own. It's a little cynical gamesmanship, but we tolerate it. As a result, the Democrat and the Republican usually appear several times on the ballot. And it's not always obvious why their names show up in one place or another. Sometimes the Libertarian Party backs a Democrat, sometimes the Liberal Party (yes, we got one) backs the Republican.

If that goes on in Chicago too, then there is a big difference between being endorsed by the New Party and being a member of the New Party. So the question is still open--did Obama join the party? Did he court their endorsement? Or did he simply not oppose it?

Arturius said..."I have always subscribed to the theory that you can tell a lot about a person by the folks they associate with. I may not go so far as to say he's a full fledged socialist but I think it's fair to say that he is certainly sympathetic to a broad spectrum of the philosophy."

Well, based on the massive amount of money the government has recently doled out via the 700 Billion (which will actually be closer to a Trillion of more), and to AIG and others...that would mean Bush, Paulson, Congress and others in the current administration and financial community are actually..."socialists."

Rule of thumb. Those who are quick to label racism and bigotry at the drop of a hat based on imaginary "evidence" are themselves bigots. But we only need to read a sentence or two of these snarling, bilious lefty trolls to know that bigotry is their stock in trade.

Paul said... Rule of thumb. Those who are quick to label racism and bigotry at the drop of a hat based on imaginary "evidence" are themselves bigots. But we only need to read a sentence or two of these snarling, bilious lefty trolls to know that bigotry is their stock in trade.

Well, based on the massive amount of money the government has recently doled out via the 700 Billion (which will actually be closer to a Trillion of more), and to AIG and others...that would mean Bush, Paulson, Congress and others in the current administration and financial community are actually..."socialists."

And I don't necessarily disagree. I thought Bush was a horrible candidate in 2000 and he hasn't done anything but reinforce that view of him since.

As I said in a subsequent thread, Bush has governed in a most un-Republican manner for the last eight years. Bush is no more a Reagan Republican than Obama is a JFK Democrat.

ALL of Obama's supporters throughout the entire country, are..."socialists."

That's funny."

I take exception. All of Obama's suporters are not socialists. Some are simple-minded trolls, community organizers, trust-fund babies, Hollywood simpletons, cocooned academics, MSM 'journos',bath-house attendants, public school teachers, illegal immigrants, Manhattan socialites...I could go on but do I really have to??

OK, Michael, I assume you're the troll who's being ignored, but since I don't often post here, I'll go off on my own and address you anyway.

HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton (sexism? No, just the way it's done)

GWB = George W. Bush (ummm somethingism? I don't think so, just the way it's done)

William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan (not so much the initials, but the full name is fairly commonly used. No -isms here either, it's just the way it's done)

BHO = Barack Hussein Obama (well, yes, they are purposely taking note of his middle name being Hussein, but the fact remains it IS his middle name and BHO is a perfectly appropriate way to refer to him. Besides, as someone else pointed out, remove the "H" and you got "BO". Would you prefer that?)

Simply the most incoherent post I've ever read here. Why not call a socialist a socialist? Don't tell me not to call a spade a spade or a club a club, I'll call them as I see them.

Everything about this post speaks to socialism, jealousy, income redistribution, class war. Joel Roberts, whether or not he likes to hear it. is a socialist. There's nothing else to make of peeling off the most left of the left.

I didn't bother with the word clouds presented here earlier, but I recall hearing the word "fairness" a lot by both Obama and Biden. Now there's a word that grates. There. is. no. such. thing ◯ <--- emphatic period. What is an attempt to achieve fairness through social engineering if not a yearning for socialism? Bah. This was all so very interesting the first time we read about it in Animal Farm.

Yes, Obama is socialist. In his bones. As socialist as allowed in American politics with himself at the control levers. Joel Rogers is attempting to stretch that allowance.

I'm in poor spirit this morning. I fumbled boiling water and burned my leg. So Im really not in any mood to be instructed how to redefine my native language. I spent too much time learning these words the to have somebody I don't know tell me they actually mean something else so that it becomes easier to slip proven-to-fail economic polices into American politics under another name.

To quote Lauren Hill:Beware the false motives of othersBe careful of those who pretend to be brothersAnd you never suppose its those who are closest to you, to youThey say all the right things to gain their positionThen use your kindness as their ammunitionTo shoot you down in the name of ambition, they do......Men who lack conscience will even lie to themselves, to themselvesA friend once said, and I found to be trueThat everyday people, they lie to God tooSo what makes you think, that they wont lie to you?

No, every BHO (Now using someone's middle initial is racist? I hate people that casually toss around Nazi, but causually tossing around racist is worse.) supporter isn't a socialist. The Soviets had a phrase for the people in the West that gave them moral support and validity - useful idiots. Most of those people never considered themselves communists, and undoubtedly would've vigorously denied the charge that they were providing material support to the Soviets; they were just "being honest" "telling things as they saw them" "trying to be fair"; they never realized that the Soviets had no such scruples and deliberately and strategically manipulated what they saw and heard.

The facts are these (yeah, these are repeats):Joe Lieberman, about BHO - "I will tell ya that during this campaign, I’ve learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn’t…I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist, but he’s got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America."

Obama endorsed and campaigned for self described socialist senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He started his political career at the house of, and worked for years with a Marxist terrorists.

And now we find out he was associated with the New Party, a branch of the Chicago Democratic Socialists.

Even if this were all innocuous and coincidental, why hide it? People can shuck and jive and rationalize, but pure intellectual curiosity (the kind that progressives are always criticiszing others for not having) should at least make them want an answer from the horse's mouth before they declare the issue closed. That people are so unwilling to even consider the growing mountain of evidence that this guy isn't who he says he is speaks volumes about the power of self deception.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

WRT the 'bailout' being nationalization or gov't control, -- that's precisely why so many people (outside of Washington) opposed it.

The underlying belief of socialism is that the government knows better how to "equitably" manage everyone else's education, business, health, social life whatever (well, the last might be a joke, except for many hunting, shooting and gas guzzling NASCAR are part of the social life).

(I say everyone else's because I find it curious [and offensive] that people like Wright and Ayers and Obama manage to live on the fat of the land in fabulous houses in terrific neighborhoods and send their kids to $40,000 a year private schools while they represent the poor working class stiffs.)

According to Mises, some say they reject socialism and capitalism. Instead, they demand "a third way" of economic organization midway between the two.

Mises has said, "Middle-of-the-road policy is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments."

"The antagonism between capitalism and socialism is not a dispute about the distribution of booty. It is a controversy about which two schemes for society's economic organization, capitalism or socialism, is conducive to the better attainment of those ends which all people consider as the ultimate aim of activities commonly called economic, viz., the best possible supply of useful commodities and services."

"Capitalism wants to attain these ends by private enterprise and initiative, subject to the supremacy of the public's buying and abstention from buying on the market. The socialists want to substitute the unique plan of a central authority for the plans of the various individuals."

The antagonism does not refer to the mode of distributing a fixed amount of amenities. It refers to the mode of producing all those goods which people want to enjoy."

However,

"The conflict of the two principles is irreconcilable and does not allow for any compromise. Control is indivisible. Either the consumers' demand as manifested on the market decides for what purposes and how the factors of production should be employed, or the government takes care of these matters. There is nothing that could mitigate the opposition between these two contradictory principles. They preclude each other. Interventionism ['the Third Way'] is not a golden mean between capitalism and socialism."

Definitely not up front, and definitely not "clear" (as in his oft repeated "Let me be clear ..." yada stuff.)

Ann you don't know who this guy is. Because nobody knows.

Heard from any of his classmates? Old girlfriends? What were his social circles in NYC? Hang out with the lefty crowd? Anyone talked to any of them?

Nope. Just like Ayers, they are all mum.

If they are there.

Did this guy have any friends or, acquaintances who haven't taken a vow of silence? (His "classmates" don't seem to remember him. But then, since we don't know what classes he did take -- guess because he wants to be POTUS that should be good enough for us. What classes he took are none of our business.)

And did all that Annenberg money go towards teaching solid reading and math skills -- the kinds of things that disadvantaged kids need to leap the barrier?

Hell no. It was the UN and "social justice" and black history and how to be an activist.

Useful indoctrination by the "organizers."

Being able to read and write and calculate make the biggest difference in crossing that barrier to productive lives, but Ayers and Obama and the rest of the "reformers" at CAC (and elsewhere in the community orgainzing arenas) were too busy pushing community activism to care about that.

Having worked with "disadvantaged," adjudicated youth, I can tell you that unless they could read, fill out job applications legibly, do basic calculations and at least learn a basic skill set or trade, they were not going anywhere except back to the Big House when they got back on the streets.

How about radically altering the teaching of the skills needed, instead of teaching kids to see themselves as victims of a literate culture. Teach the skills.

Chanting praises to Obama for inspiring them to pursue architecture and auto mechanics is sickening.

Throwing millions of dollars away on social engineering instead of using it to figure out better ways to make the information necessary 'graspable' is immoral.

Althouse you love language. This is the best comment of the month from Chip Ahoy:

"I spent too much time learning these words the to have somebody I don't know tell me they actually mean something else so that it becomes easier to slip proven-to-fail economic polices into American politics under another name."

I think Im sophisticatedcos Im living my life like a good homosapienBut all around me everybodys multiplyingTill theyre walking round like flies manSo Im no better than the animals sitting in their cagesIn the zoo mancos compared to the flowers and the birds and the treesI am an ape manI think Im so educated and Im so civilizedcos Im a strict vegetarianBut with the over-population and inflation and starvationAnd the crazy politiciansI dont feel safe in this world no moreI dont want to die in a nuclear warI want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape manIm an ape man, Im an ape ape manIm an ape man Im a king kong man Im ape ape manIm an ape mancos compared to the sun that sits in the skyCompared to the clouds as they roll byCompared to the bugs and the spiders and fliesI am an ape manIn mans evolution he has created the cities andThe motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chanceAnd Id be taking off my clothes and living in the junglecos the only time that I feel at easeIs swinging up and down in a coconut treeOh what a life of luxury to be like an ape manIm an ape, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape manIm a king kong man, Im a voo-doo manIm an ape manI look out my window, but I cant see the skycos the air pollution is fogging up my eyesI want to get out of this city aliveAnd make like an ape manCome and love me, be my ape man girlAnd we will be so happy in my ape man worldIm an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape manIm a king kong man, Im a voo-doo manIm an ape manIll be your tarzan, youll be my janeIll keep you warm and youll keep me saneAnd well sit in the trees and eat bananas all dayJust like an ape manIm an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape manIm a king kong man, Im a voo-doo manIm an ape man.I dont feel safe in this world no moreI dont want to die in a nuclear warI want to sail away to a distant shoreAnd make like an ape man.

I was just a boy when I sat downTo watch the news on TVI saw some ordinary slaughterI saw some routine atrocityMy father said, don't look awayYou got to be strong, you got to be bold, nowHe said, that in the end it is beautyThat is going to save the world, now.

An idea of what Ayers has in mind for America's schools was provided in his own words not 40 years ago when Obama was eight years old, but less than two years ago in November 2006 at the World Education Forum in Caracas hosted by dictator Hugo Chavez.

With Chavez at his side, Ayers voiced his support for "the political educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how . . . all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."

Ayers told the great humanitarian Chavez: "Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions large and small. La educacion es revolucion." It is that form of socialist revolution that Ayers, and Obama, have worked to bring to America.

All on your own, you just decided to begin using Obama's middle initial...within days of the recently publicized introductions at McCain rallies using his middle name.

Do you refer to McCain as JSM?

Or, for that matter ANY other candidate who was in the running up to now?

You know: JRB, HDRC, JWR, RWLG, etc.??

Bigoted and racist behavior.

Funny,

I seem to recall the entire democratic party referring to 41 as george HERBERT WALKER bush when they wanted to make a class based attack. but BHO is offlimits even though everybody used WJC, HRC, and GWB when they ran?

From the liberally biased Random House Unabridged Dictionary:–noun 1. an advocate or supporter of socialism. 2. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.

Well, we know Obama isn't a member of that party, so let's explore the first part.

Socialism –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Could someone point me to where Obama has advocated "the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"?

I missed that part of his convention speech, I guess.

I am sorry for anyone who burned him or herself, but it's not very sensible to rant about how one knows the English language and then not recognize that the dictionary definition of socialist doesn't seem close to Obama.

1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals." 2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost." 3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication." 4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation." 5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions." 6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery." 7. "A system of unemployment insurance." 8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor." 9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance." 10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week." 11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment." 12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents." 13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance." 14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."

1. "Nationalization of our natural resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites, particularly at Boulder Dam and Muscle Shoals." 2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost." 3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication." 4. "An adequate national program for flood control, flood relief, reforestation, irrigation, and reclamation." 5. "Immediate government relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works ... All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions." 6. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery." 7. "A system of unemployment insurance." 8. "The nation-wide extension of public employment agencies in cooperation with city federations of labor." 9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance." 10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week." 11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment." 12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents." 13. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance." 14. "Appropriation by taxation of the annual rental value of all land held for speculation."

9. "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."

10. "Shortening the workday" and "Securing to every worker a rest period of no less than two days in each week."

11. "Enacting of an adequate federal anti-child labor amendment."

12. "Abolition of the brutal exploitation of convicts under the contract system and substitution of a cooperative organization of industries in penitentiaries and workshops for the benefit of convicts and their dependents."

Good grief, even that mad Marxist Margaret Mitchell, while busily romanticizing the Confederacy, acknowledged that the convict labor system was immoral.

Carville and Matalin have frequently and publicly acknowledged that they have utterly opposed political views. Let me know when Gov. Palin specifically states that she disagrees with her husband on the wisdom of AIP's ideas during the time he was a member. So far I've never heard a word that they disagree on anything, whereas Cindy McCain at least seems to have a muddled idea of disagreeing with her husband about abortion.

Erased from AIP's latest platform is what consistently was stated as the party's goal when Mr. Palin was a member (1995-2002):

GOALThe Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives: 1) Remain a Territory. 2) Become a separate and Independent Nation. 3) Accept Commonwealth status. 4) Become a State.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets." -BHO.

Put that obsession to rest. Todd Palin is NOT a member of the AIP. He was in the past, but he's not now. If you're going to hurl accusations, get your facts straight.

If we want to hurl accusations based on the spouse's beliefs then I guess we can talk about Michelle Obama's college thesis in which she opposes further integration of blacks into American society. We can talk about how she thinks America is a "mean country."

You really want to go down this road, you moron?

As far as Obama being a socialist:

If you read the documents which have been uncovered, it's pretty obvious that he WAS a member of the New Party as well as the Democratic Party. The New Party attempted something called "fusion" which was only later struck down by the Supreme Court. (Google it before you try to argue and end up looking foolish.) Given that the New Party was considered TO THE LEFT of the Green Party, there's no way that it can be argued with a straight face that it wasn't a socialist party.

Althouse objects to the term because she is a liberal, and she recognizes that socialism is not a winning national platform. So, in her support for Obama, she must assist in helping him distance himself from his socialist connections.

It's so obvious a failure though that I can't even give it a "Nice try."

Sure, pointing to his association with the New Party as sole support for such a statement is analogous to saying that the small frosting rose on a birthday cake is what makes it fattening.

But by the same token, his New Party membership is simply one more clue - what is more telling is his own descriptions of who he sought out and hung around with while he was in college, and his professional record since. He hasn't just 'associated' with these 'people in his neighborhood' - he actively worked with them to advance or realize their specific, ideologically driven agendas. And call them what you will (some of the things they've been called are marxist, little 'c' communistic, or Maoist - this from folks like Ayers and Klonsky)

Over 100 million for what amounted to political indoctrination or Chicago schoolkids.

Large sums of money from the Joyce Foundation to commandeer whole law review issues to seed the literature with pro-gun control positions.

Doing the judicial trench work for ACORN in the Citi case, and representing them as they fought for the changes to the CRA that set the conditions for the current financial mess.

Obama's certainly not a socialist now. He lives in a $1.5 million house in a nice area in Chicago, has made millions of bucks in the last few years, sends his kids to one of the best private schools in the country and is friends with Warren Buffett.

Bill Ayers is a spoiled rich kid (yeah, he's still rich) who teaches in the education school of a second-rate state university and spouts off educational philosophy no one but a graduate student who will eventually toil in anonymity would take seriously. Ayers is terrible at his job. He's about as influential as Scritti Polliti.

Six months from now, everyone will forget what the big deal about Obama was and he'll serve 4 undistinguished years as President and end up throwing out the first pitch of the World Series every 5 years like George H.W. Bush.

My problem with Ann's suggestion that Obama is not a socialist is that she seems to be trying to define the term narrowly enough to exclude him. But the term, as it is commonly used in this country is not based on membership in a particular party, but rather, the extent that someone has a certain political outlook.

The other problem is that it is posed as a boolean determination - someone is either a socialist or not. But that ignores the common usage of the term, which identifies a movement that includes Communists, Nazis, and Fascists, as well as some of today's parties that have "Socialist" in their names. Others above have described it adequately, so I don't need to duplicate their work.

One of the results of this is that instead of a boolean state, we have a continuum ranging from pure socialism through pure capitalism. The question then is not whether Obama is a socialist, but rather, where he is on the continuum.

Six months from now, everyone will forget what the big deal about Obama was and he'll serve 4 undistinguished years as President and end up throwing out the first pitch of the World Series every 5 years like George H.W. Bush.

If we could just be that lucky. I'm concerned that his policies combined with a far more Democratic Congress will:

I dunno, it's hard to see what the intent is of comparing my wages to Michael Eisner's unless you have some socialist scheme in mind which would even the difference out. Can someone articulate a non-socialist reason to start working that grievance in an election?

Ann, you've jumped the shark, period. There's no rational reason to support Obama, as he's said almost nothing about his policy preferences, has no experience, and clearly comes from a rather bizarre background (to be polite about it).

Your reference to his "youthful vigor" in another post betrays your real reason for turning to him: you find him sexually attractive. That, I think, is pretty obvious.

Since 1968, the Democrat Party has been moving towards being Socialists. There was a strong scent of Socialism in the Dems leading up to that year's convention. However, by 1972, with the party rule changes and with McGovern's leadership, Socialists then owned the Dems. People like EFK, Carter, Mondale, et al have finalized the process. Bill Clinton was more a populist but Hillary is right out of Saul Alinsky's mold.

Obama himself is a disciple of Saul Alinsky's methods and his early involvement in politics have followed Alinsky's methods. I do believe that his involvement, to whatever degree with Ayers and Dohrn, is part of that same association and has the same root cause.

So, while Prof. Althouse chooses to quibble about the definition of the "New Party," IMHO there can be no such quibble about Senator Obama's true political beliefs.

I agree very much with Scott in that I call Obama a Socialist in defining his political views and the manner in which he goes about gaining power. It is clearly not an "epithet" yet that might become the one best applied to us all in coming years if Obama wins election.

Obama is very much an Elitist, a Socialist, and wishes to assume power over our life, our economy, our political discourse. He means for his way to be the "Way."

The way in which Obama's campaign has encouraged the cult of "The One," his stated goal of establishing "civilian" action groups (Like his stated Civilian Nation Defense Corp, with "as much funding as DOD!") and the control over mass media that his followers are developing, all show he intends to become our "Dear Leader" and to own our souls as Michelle has stated.

Oct. 7, 2008 | “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.”

This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years and that she sent a shout-out to as Alaska governor earlier this year.

For the record, I strongly suspect Joel Rogers is commenting here as "PG."

Oddly, I find this a very boring set of comments. Is there a word for words that have been so heavily used and abused that they have lost all use as carriers of a particular meaning? If so, "socialism" should be an example in its definition.

How can it be relevant to call Barack Obama a socialist when the taxpayers of America, guided by a Republican administration, are about to add some major banks to our brand-new collection of (collectively owned) insurance companies and mortgage securities whose actual value is defined as undefinable except that their listed value can't be right?

I suggest that this entire thread has been hijacked by a McCain meme, to the advantage of no one and the elucidation of nothing. Francis Bacon tells us that confusion is what we encounter when we venture into the territory between defined disciplines (here, political science, economics, presidential politics, media studies, history and English) and lose our way. Folks, sometimes the best thing we can do is recognize confusion for what it is and hold our fire. The world just changed a hell of a lot in the last two weeks - take a breather and let the language catch up.

For the record, I strongly suspect Joel Rogers is commenting here as "PG."

Ann has had plenty of e-mail discussions with my husband, who blogged under his full name in law school. If she is worried that I'm a sock-puppet for Rogers, she can verify. Wendy's remark reminds me of when I pissed off some radical feminists by advocating for trans rights, and they immediately decided I must have been born a man. Certain people can't imagine why one would ever take up a defense of someone unless one was that someone.

I see that

a) no one has pointed out how Obama fits the dictionary definition of "socialist." Instead, "socialist" is defined by a series of comparisons: if X is seen as being to the left of Y, and Y is seen as a socialist (without Y's having been shown to fit the definition either), then X must be a socialist. No wonder Althouse needs to cower and ask for your pity when she departs from orthodoxy.

b) If Todd Palin no longer is accountable for his affiliation with AIP, Obama no longer is running under the name of the New Party and shouldn't be accountable for that.

Redbaiting is so low-down, & unbecoming, but it's expected of your loser, stupid commentators. Joseph McCarthy did that, and destroyed numerous careers and lives in the process, until he was throughly discredited. It won't work or stick to Obama. He's the teflon democratic nominee, just like Reagan was the teflon, know-nothing, B-movie, anti-communist hero of the Right. I'm just glad Reagan is dead. You're not getting any poetry from me, Chip. I'm telling it like it is. So, stuff the "socialist" label. You're in the hip pocket of billionaires, like Simple Simon is. All for the rich and crumbs for everyone else. You and Pogo stink. The rest of you stink, as well. Boy, am I in a good mood tonight or what?! LOL.

One more thing before I hit the hay, why aren't people jumping out of 20th story windows like they did in 1929 when the stock market crashed? Hoover=Bush all over again. When will the Rethuglicans ever learn?

The unsettling part is the widespread meme that it doesn't matter if he/we hide his real affiliations, real beliefs, because the most important thing is electing him. Why? Because a) that will get rid of Bush; b) don't we all want to get as much as we can from "the government."

Selfish, greedy, unethical stupidity multiplied by a hundred million... we really have lost our roots. We assume history doesn't matter, as if we're immune to the causes of the death of a society.

I'd die for the privilege of serving others. Care to join me?

That's what we need: people passionate about honest service, rather than power or greed.

Todd Palin isn't running for any office. But my understanding was that Obama was being judged in large part on his associations. There are few associations more intimate than that of husband and wife, particularly when Todd Palin has a track record of participating in his wife's governing. (Did Michelle Obama get CC'ed on her husband's government emails? Did she sit in on his meetings with Senate staff?)

If Republicans are wed to the idea that we should judge people by their associates, then Todd Palin is well worth analyzing.

I'd die for the privilege of serving others. Care to join me?

I got over my Ayn Rand phase by senior year of high school, but that kind of rhetoric is enough to give me a cold chill.

And I see that the native English speakers here still won't explain how Obama fits the definition of socialist. Those of us aware of countries with actual socialists and communists, and especially actual Maoists (my grandmother's property has been threatened by Naxalite thugs several times), are amused by the American conservative's belief that anyone to the left of himself is a socialist. Ask folks who used to be Soviet satellites and now belong to the EU what the difference between economic socialism and economic liberalism is.

It's not fair to call the New Party "socialist," and it's really not fair to paint Obama as a crypto-socialist today because of his association with it.

Of course not. It's ignorant. These guys don't even know what these words mean. The misrepresent what other people stand for.

To see the first comment from Pogo is to see this mendacious ignorance at work.

"Progressive" is a form of fighting liberalism that confronts the excesses of corporate power. When there was a Progressive Party in the US, led by former Wisconsin Governor and Senator Bob LaFollette, it led to reforms that reined in abusive corporate practices in many industries.

LaFollette called it a "third way" and explicitly said it was neither laissez faire capitalism nor socialism.

And that's what Joel rogers was reaching for. An alternative to the Democratic Party.

The "socialist" label is tossed around as a slur by people who don't know what they're talking about.

May I suggest, Ann, that a muddled language leads to a muddled thinking? And don’t you understand what technique God used to disperse the people of the Tower of Babel?

This confused post shows what American socialists have done to the English language. Why does the word "liberal" mean 2 different things in European languages---including British English---and in American English? Why do I always have to modify with "classical" when I describe some of my attitudes as liberal?

I never quite understood the reason why socialists in this country don't want to be called socialists. First they called themselves “liberals” and now that "liberal" is both unclear in meaning and disliked by large part of the public, socialists want to be called “progressives” . Could we please agree on the principle that words should have, like, defined meanings so we can talk to each other and, you know, like, understand what we are saying?

P.S. My favorite example of the language mess is this newspaper headline:

Liberals Oppose Liberalized Gun Law

Even my liberal friends usually understand our language problem when they hear this sentence. There is hope.

"fighting liberalism" - a true contradiction in terms if there ever was one. Liberals aren't willing to fight for anything.

However, we still have conservative who are willing to fight liberals. At least this month. Soon, we will all be corralled, sent to reeducation camps and put to work growing arugala for the elite "progressives", who, ironically, never progress, but instead, remain stunted and constipated in their ideation and logic.

Can we get down to basics and take a look at their platform or vision statement or whatever it is they subscribe to?

OK, I'll do that, right after this.

It turns out the the New Party's main program is something called "fusion voting".

I couldn't resist going to the New Party website. (Great name, that. "Hey, guys, we don't like this old Dem vs Rep thing. We need to start a new party. --- OK, that's it then".)

"The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process."

I'm all for breaking the stranglehold that corporate media (read "MSM") have over our political process. They've already elected Obama, and I doubt we'll see anything like "Dewey Defeats Truman" on Nov 5.

One problem with "fusion voting" [see the site] is that it leads to a parliamentary system, like we see in Italy - a dozen or so parties in power, resulting in government after government, with little stability. The system as it is is broken, but I don't think that "fusion" is the way out.

I tend to agree with pogo about the link between "socialist" and "progressive". I really believe that they changed the name when they discovered, some years back, that "socialist" didn't have the same warm fuzzy resonance with the public that it once had.

A slight correction for the origins (from Wiki):

"The New Party was founded in the early 1990s by Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign, and by sociology and law professor Joel Rogers as an effort to break with the largely unsuccessful history of left-leaning third parties in the United States.. . .Although the New Party has been effectively defunct since the late 1990s, a website still exists."

"left-leaning", "progressive" - do we need any more evidence (though circumstantial) for their fundamental politics?

I never quite understood the reason why socialists in this country don't want to be called socialists. First they called themselves “liberals” and now that "liberal" is both unclear in meaning and disliked by large part of the public, socialists want to be called “progressives” . Could we please agree on the principle that words should have, like, defined meanings so we can talk to each other and, you know, like, understand what we are saying?

Words do have defined meanings. In the dictionary. Unfortunately, the commenters here can't call Obama a socialist if they use the dictionary meaning, so they ignore it.

By the word "socialist", we are not imputing anti-US motivations to you. We are simply describing a factual condition.

Of course, you, in the frozen wasteland of the Great Lake states consider yourself to be average, just like your neighbors.

Many of those neighbors have strongly socialist leanings. Some, from the Scandinavian countries of heritage, by descent. Others, carefully schooled in the left-leaning academic institutions, by inculcation - what we, in the non-left parts of the country call indoctrination.

It's not a vindictive smear of members of the New Party's character - it's a description that is factual.

Obama is not far enough over the line to be socialist and he is far far far from communist. Obama simply realizes that capitalism without restraint is a canabal.

Parts of socialism are very useful, especially with a country as rich as ours. We should not have starving children in this country or kids who can not afford to see a doctor. The elderly should not have to choose between eating and taking medication. There is a social responsibility that needs to better be inacted on our home turf. We take so much social responsibility for other countries we forget sometimes the number of below income people who are citizens of this one.

Universal healthcare and caps on medicine and services should be in palce.

More funding for education should be in place.

I even agree with the executive pay caps that are in pace because of the 700 bail out.

When there is a portion of the country suffering the rich should be willing to pay slightly higher taxes than the poor. They make it back when the poor have extra money to spend anyway. The rich get rich because people buy thier service or product.

Western europe and canida are very socialistic, it obviously works. The big problem is many confuse it with communism, which obviously does not work look at russia. However unsanctioned capitalism does not work either, the USA sometimes canabalizes itself with mccain and bush type actions, I think clinton did alot for this country and obama will too. maybe instead of eliminating the middle class (which is where this country is going) we can eliminate the poverty class and everyone can live comfortable and enjoy this great nation.